The use of political influence to gain material wealth is similar to the use of unfair means to obtain, maintain and increase political power in that they both involve the elite. The biggest similarity between the two is that they are both forms of political deviance. Further, the use of money is rife in both cases. For instance, the politicians take bribes both direct and indirectly to enrich themselves like the case of William Jefferson, a congressional representative for Louisiana who illegally hid US$90,000 stashed in his freezer (Wrange, 2007, p. 121). Another illustration is that corporate executives are involved in deals with political players in order to have laws that are ‘friendly’ to their companies. On the other hand, the elite uses money, with the sole motive of gaining political mileage. This includes kickbacks, campaign bribery all done with the intention of securing political seats of power.
Nevertheless, there are some distinct differences in the above two actions mainly arising from the individual’s drive. Greed drives individuals who tend to use political influence to gain material wealth, while a desire to be in control drives those who would use any means to maintain political power. An excellent example is the Watergate scandal were the men on the ground who were former security agents hoped to get information that would ensure a victory to the then President Nixon. In this case, the interest was to remain in power.
Political deviance in a worldly context involves acts of terrorism, political assassinations, tax and draft evasion, spying, genocides, slavery, and even violation of human rights. In the United States, it is from a historical point of view including the assassination of President J. F. Kennedy. Due to the democratic space in the United States, uglier forms of this deviance are not there like genocides. The book Elite deviance categorizes political deviance into two: that involving political influence to gain material wealth and that involving the use of unfair means to gain, maintain and increase political power.
Political players in the United States have repeatedly called for the need of security agencies such as the CIA and the FBI. However, most of their activities that involve spying on people have elicited sharp criticism from various quarters. All the intelligence is usually at the disposal of those who hold the power and especially the president who has “executive privilege” (Simon, 2007, p. 244). These unchecked powers lead to acts of deviance with the promise of immunity. Tax and draft evasion represent the second category of political deviance. Political power brings with it some privileges, making the laws for instance. However, since the elite are the ones who hold the power and make the laws, they sometimes make it legal to evade taxes and enrich themselves. All these deviant behaviors trace their roots to one thing that is unchecked powers.
Therefore, what should one do to ensure the eradication of these forms of elite deviance? The first thing is to minimize the powers that are held by the president. The privileges that a President has in terms of secrecy of information should have a legal checking mechanism just to ensure he does not overuse them. Further, the use of the excuse by security organizations that their actions are spurred by the need for national security to defend their stance should cease, if progress in eradicating political deviance is to be made.
To discuss fully the issue of stigma associated with the taking of Marijuana, it is important first to distinguish between stigma and deviance. According to Goffman, stigma “refers to an attribute that is deeply discrediting” and that “reduces a person from a whole and usual person to a tainted and discounted one” (as cited in Kornblum, 2007, p. 158). Deviance, on the other hand, is doing contrary to the norms that are set out in society. Deviance is measured against norms while stigma depends on how we view the individual whom we stigmatize. Therefore, there are two answers to this question on the stigma associated with marijuana: Yes and No.
First, there would be no stigma if the behavior of those who will be consuming marijuana were still within respectable levels. This is because currently a well-dressed person in a fine restaurant taking wine may not pass for a person taking alcohol from a brown bottle somewhere in the alleys. Consequently, if the intake of marijuana is legalized, some will take it in the precincts of their home or designated areas and so will not be stigmatized.
On the other hand, those who engage in deviant behavior because of marijuana intake will automatically suffer stigmatization. Since a stigmatized individual is not able to re-integrate well with the non-stigmatized in the society, they will spiral down into secondary deviant behaviors (Kornblum, 2007, p.158). Though note that stigma will be associated with the taking of marijuana and will be directed towards those who will be most affected by it.
Reference List
Kornblum, W. (2007). Sociology in a Changing World. Belmont CA: Thomson Publishing.
Simon, D. (2008). Elite Deviance. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Wrange, A. (2007). Bribery and Extortion: Undermining Business, Governments and Security. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.